Dataset Information

Does Biosimilar Bevacizumab Offer Affordable Treatment Options for Cancer Patients in the USA? A Budget Impact Analysis from US Commercial and Medicare Payer Perspectives.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Bevacizumab remains the most widely used and most thoroughly characterized angiogenesis inhibitor for a range of advanced cancers. Bevacizumab-bvzr (Zirabev^®), a biosimilar of bevacizumab, was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which provides a less costly option. This study aimed to evaluate the financial impact of introducing bevacizumab-bvzr from US commercial and Medicare payer perspectives.

Methods

A Microsoft Excel-based budget impact model was developed over a 5-year time horizon. Target population was patients to be treated with bevacizumab for FDA-approved indications. Drug costs (2020 US$) were based on average sales price and wholesale acquisition cost, accounting for payer-specific reimbursement models and provider settings. Drug dosing and duration were based on prescribing information and pivotal trial publications.

Results

In a hypothetical 10-million-member health plan, 503 and 723 patients were estimated to be treated with bevacizumab in year 1 and year 5, respectively. Assuming an annual market shift of 1.7%, 3.6%, 6.7%, 9.4%, and 11.9% to bevacizumab-bvzr, an annual cost saving of $313,363 ($0.003 per member per month [PMPM]) was estimated for a commercial payer and $92,880 ($0.001 PMPM) for Medicare in year 1. Cumulative 5-year cost savings were $7,030,924 ($0.012 PMPM) for a commercial payer and $4,059,257 ($0.007 PMPM) for Medicare. More than half of the cost savings was attributed to patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Conclusions

The introduction of biosimilar bevacizumab-bvzr was estimated to provide substantial cost savings for US payers, which would allow additional patients access to bevacizumab treatment.

SUBMITTER: Yang J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8270829 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective:To estimate the budget impact of introducing avelumab as a second-line (2L) treatment option for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) from the perspective of a US third-party payer (commercial and Medicare). Methods:A budget impact model (BIM) with a three-year time horizon was developed for avelumab. Efficacy and safety data were sourced from published literature and US package inserts. The analysis was conducted in collaboration with a specialist oncologist who validated clinical assumptions. Costs were based on the number of eligible patients, time-to-treatment failure, overall survival, adverse events (AEs), and projected market shares of various treatments. Results:In a hypothetical commercial health plan of 30,000,000 members, 884 patients were estimated to be eligible for 2L treatment over a three-year time period. Without avelumab, the total cost for treating patients with mUC was estimated to be US$70,268,035. The introduction of avelumab increased total costs by $73,438 (0.10% increase). In a hypothetical Medicare health plan of 30,000,000 beneficiaries, a total of 4,705 patients were estimated to be eligible for 2L treatment. Without avelumab, the total cost for treating patients with mUC was estimated to be $292,923,098 from a Medicare perspective; however, with avelumab, there was an increase of $719,324 (0.25% increase) in total costs. Results of the sensitivity analyses demonstrated a cost-neutral impact across all tested scenarios from both perspectives. Conclusion:The BIM estimated that avelumab would have a cost-neutral impact within a US commercial and a Medicare health plan. Overall, avelumab can be an affordable and valuable treatment option for patients with locally advanced or mUC in the 2L setting. These findings demonstrate a consistently favorable budget impact in both populations. Further studies should be conducted to more comprehensively assess the clinical and economic implications of adding avelumab to the treatment armamentarium of 2L mUC.

Project description:PurposeBevacizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor-specific angiogenesis in some cancers. MYL-1402O is a proposed bevacizumab biosimilar.MethodsThe primary objective of this single-center, randomized, double-blind, three-arm, parallel-group, phase 1 study in healthy male volunteers was to evaluate bioequivalence of MYL-1402O to EU and US-reference bevacizumab, and EU-reference bevacizumab to US-reference bevacizumab. The primary pharmacokinetic parameter was area under the serum concentration-time curve from 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞). Pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed using general linear models of analysis of variance. Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability.ResultsOf 111 enrolled subjects, 110 were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis (MYL-1402O, n = 37; EU-reference bevacizumab, n = 36; US-reference bevacizumab, n = 37). Bioequivalence was demonstrated between MYL-1402O and EU-reference bevacizumab, MYL-1402O and US-reference bevacizumab, and between EU- and US-reference bevacizumab where least squares mean ratios of AUC0-∞ were close to 1, and 90% CIs were within the equivalence range (0.80-1.25). Secondary pharmacokinetic parameters (AUC from 0 to time of last quantifiable concentration [AUC0-t], peak serum concentration [Cmax], time to Cmax, elimination rate constant, and elimination half-life) were also comparable, with 90% CIs for ratios of AUC0-t and Cmax within 80-125%. Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar across all three treatment groups and were consistent with clinical data for bevacizumab.ConclusionMYL-1402O was well tolerated and demonstrated pharmacokinetic and safety profiles similar to EU-reference bevacizumab and US-reference bevacizumab in healthy male volunteers. No new significant safety issues emerged (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02469987; ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu EudraCT, 2014-005621-12; June 12, 2015).

Project description:ObjectiveDescriptions of the inpatient experience for patients hospitalized with systolic heart failure (HF) are limited and lack a cross-sectional representation of the US population. While length of stay (LOS) is a primary determinant of resource use and post-discharge events, few models exist for estimating LOS.Research design and methodsMarketScan(®) administrative claims data from 1/1/2005-6/30/2008 were used to select hospitalized patients aged ≥18 years with discharge diagnoses for both HF (primary diagnosis) and systolic HF (any diagnostic position) without prior HF hospitalization or undergoing transplantation.ResultsAmong 17,597 patients with systolic HF; 4109 had commercial; 2118 had Medicaid; and 11,370 had Medicare payer type. Medicaid patients had longer mean LOS (7.1 days) than commercial (6.3 days) or Medicare (6.7 days). In-hospital mortality was highest for patients with Medicaid (2.4%), followed by Medicare (1.3%) and commercial (0.6%). Commercial patients were more likely to receive inpatient procedures. Renal failure, pressure ulcer, malnutrition, a non-circulatory index admission DRG, receipt of a coronary artery bypass procedure or cardiac catheterization, or need for mechanical ventilation during the index admission were associated with increased LOS; receipt of a pacemaker device at index was associated with shorter LOS.LimitationsSelection of patients with systolic HF is limited by completeness and accuracy of medical coding, and results may not be generalizable to patients with diastolic HF or to international populations.ConclusionInpatient care, LOS, and in-hospital survival differ by payer among patients hospitalized with systolic HF, although co-morbidity and inpatient procedures consistently influence LOS across payer types. These findings may refine risk stratification, allowing for targeted intensive inpatient management and/or aggressive transitional care to improve outcomes and increase the efficiency of care.